The United Nations Population Fund has issued an annual report describing access to birth control and contraception as a universal human right for women and adolescents.

The is the first time the UN agency has labeled birth control a right, although the report is not legally binding on any nations and does not affect or alter the laws of any country in any way. Still, the declaration is a concern for pro-life advocates, who are worried it is the first step towards the United Nations attempting to make abortion an international right.

In its report, the UNFPA also indicated it would spent another $4.1 billion on promoting contraception throughout the world  even though many of the poorest nations in the world are battling a need for basic food and water, shelter, and medicine. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. pays for 22 percent of the $5.15 billion budget for the UN.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for Americas Beverly LaHaye Institute, respond to the new report in comments to LifeNews.

The UNFPA report is based on the proclamation that family planning is a human right. It bluntly states that ensuring universal access to family planning means challenging traditional and local practices  another way of saying that any disagreement is to be squelched, and that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are irrelevant when family planning rights are at stake, she said. The UNFPA goals are justified by claiming that reducing unintended pregnancies would mean fewer abortions.

Crouse continued: Throughout the report, words like all and everyone pile up as the UNFPA declares their intent that everyone in all nations has a human right for family planning and nothing can stand in the way of implementing UNFPAs family planning goals.....

This isn't about "rights" being access to a "product". It's about limiting population, for one thing - and since contraception never works all the time, the next "right" is abortion. And then killing the useless eaters. It's also about changing the moral standards from sex within marriage to a hedonist frenzy free for all, thus ruining stable families all over the world.

15
posted on 11/15/2012 4:00:26 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

Since when is using contraception a responsibility? That implies that not using contraception is irresponsible.

It's responsible to use a contraceptive when you don't want a pregnancy. It's irresponsible to not use a contraceptive when you don't want a pregnancy -- except in the case where not using a contraceptive because of religious beliefs. Then it is neither since ostensibly the couple will accept whatever befalls them. I.E it's unlikely that people not using contraceptives for religious reasons would then use abortion as a form of contraceptive.

"Wheres the downside to paying a little to have another Democrat spayed?"

Well, I understand that you're just saying that in order to express the overall undesirability of Democrats.

But if your question were a real question, the real answer would be that sterilizing any human being --- Democrats included --- reinforces the norms that the corrupters of sex are promoting, that: sex is (or should be) inherently sterile; there is no rational argument against any kind of perversion; and natural sexuality is a social problem which can be solved by intentional impairment on a mass scale.

IOW, it just promotes their perverted "new normal."

And don't think that would limit their numbers. Like NAMBLA, they don't breed: they recruit.

It’s pretty simple. Both male and female have the responsibility, when they are not prepared for a pregnancy, to use contraceptives.

Abortion is not a contraceptive.

If your religion doesn’t allow for contraceptives, then I at least I assume it doesn’t allow for abortion either and if you proceed, you do so at the risk of a pregnancy and an entirely new level of responsibility.

What you've said would all be wise and true, and, probably, draw almost universal agreement --- which would be a welcome thing, in this fractured world of ours--- if you simply substituted "effective and ethical methods of family planning" for the word "contraceptives".

I admit I'm more of a libertarian but I do believe teaching our values come from us, not too much from government. I don't recall that birth control is a right given to us by God, our human nature and so on. We are given free will and given rights to choose our destiny. True, we need to teach our values to our children but also we need to teach accountability and responsibility too and we must be held to that for our actions if there are consequences. Birth control is a responsibility for the family and individual not the government or UN.

No individual or entity can be “values neutral”. It is not possible, other than in perhaps fields of mathemtics or other very hard sciences. But even then the use of such knowledge will be guided one way or another by moral values or the lack or inversion thereof.

The idea that government can be values neutral is excatly what got us into the fix we’re in, or at least a good chunk of the reason. Values neutral means a vacuum, and vacuums do not remain empty for long.

How long does twilight last, between daytime and nighttime?

28
posted on 11/16/2012 10:34:36 AM PST
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

I see where you're coming from but that is why we have our system under the Constitution. I'd rather leave morality up to the locals at best or the States at worse to decide for themselves as long as those decisions do not violate the Constitution itself. I see myself as more of a Barry Goldwater type albeit I do not support abortion or Planned Parenthood.

I just come from a viewpoint that people are going to do what they are going to do, this has gone on for thousands of years. I do believe most people will do the right thing, you always have exceptions. The downside is that it is more in our faces now. Still, I come from the side where people need to be taught our values by ourselves as well as teach them the best we can to have good thought processes as well as responsibility and accountability. I'm not a libertine, if people mess up, they should be responsible for it and in many cases, that is part of the learning process as long as they do right and correct the wrong.

It is good to support good values and I do too, I just don't want to see us go as far as an American version of Saudi Arabia or Iran by codifying everything through government, especially Federal. Still, you might win some over but for the most part, it is basically preaching to the choir.

Most people today, and I guess I'm one right now, are more concerned if they will have a job tomorrow, a roof over their head, food on the table and keeping their car running. Also, losing our freedoms is big on the list too. Other things are at a premium luxury.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.